what about boby jindal?

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 6:09 PM. Reason : t]

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 6:10 PM. Reason : sss]

4/11/2010 6:08:41 PM

Didn't they give jindal his big break already? ...and didn't he prove himself to be unappealing and kind of nutty?

4/11/2010 6:10:51 PM

Quote :

"If you dig into what exactly it is specifically that Ron Paul believes about economics and money, he looks about as blindly ideological as an actual orthodox Marxist (this analogy only works for people who actually have read Marx and don't think Obama is some sort of Marxist). Of course, some people in here insist on believing that the solution to debt and spending isn't just austerity but rather allowing money to exist in the market the same way wheat does (wheat can be money now! yay! hope you follow the Chicago Board of Trade like my family did) and entertaining some of the dumber notions about product safety (we should get rid of it b/c it doesn't allow me to sell whatever I want as a miracle drug. The market will prove me right or wrong when the first person dies)."

You had already made up your mind before hearing what he had to say. Then, when something is said that shocks your senses, you immediately dismiss it as "blindly ideological."

It's stupid to talk about economics without also talking about money. It's the medium of exchange. If the currency we use is constantly fluctuating in value, how can we possibly make informed decisions about what we buy or sell? And, disregarding the market distortions that result from a constantly devaluing currency, why should it be illegal for me to use something other than government issued currency in a trade?

People say we used a bartering system at one point, and that was replaced by monetary systems in place now. We actually still use a bartering system, in reality. The only difference is that money stands between you and the things you want, and money (when backed by nothing) can be manipulated by the government in exchange for votes. That's exactly what's happening now. You can say a gold or silver standard is ludicrous, if you want. We had something like that for a very long time until a few decades ago, but whatever. What's really crazy is giving control of our money to a secretive, non-government institution to do as they see fit. How fucking stupid is that?

4/11/2010 6:14:41 PM

I've never seen the point in a gold standard when the price of gold can fluctuate just like everything else in the market. Sure, I'm a complete layman, but it just strikes me as meaningless when the value of gold is just as arbitrary as the value of printed money.

Hell, given how our government has long since abandoned the idea of "you can't spend money you don't have" and adopted a policy of "debt can be infinite and will last forever without being paid back"... it's more than likely that adopting a gold standard would just result in devaluing both gold and US$ instead of just US$.

It might be plausible if the government were to change their current spending policy, but honestly, how likely is that?

4/11/2010 6:25:50 PM

Palin/Some White Guy 2012

4/11/2010 6:29:11 PM

Quote :

"You had already made up your mind before hearing what he had to say. Then, when something is said that shocks your senses, you immediately dismiss it as "blindly ideological.""

You're hilarious. You're convinced that if someone disagrees with you, they don't do it on principal, they do it because they haven't been enlightened the way you were by your doomsday economists. Is it not possible for someone to read up on this and say "no, this is silly, I don't agree?" Apparently not, because you're still convinced that it's impossible for anyone who REALLY TRULY OPENS THEIR MIND to the philosophies of Austrian aristocrats to say "no, not for me."

Tell me some more about why we should base economics on axioms.

4/11/2010 7:13:41 PM

Quote :

"I've never seen the point in a gold standard when the price of gold can fluctuate just like everything else in the market. Sure, I'm a complete layman, but it just strikes me as meaningless when the value of gold is just as arbitrary as the value of printed money. Hell, given how our government has long since abandoned the idea of "you can't spend money you don't have" and adopted a policy of "debt can be infinite and will last forever without being paid back"... it's more than likely that adopting a gold standard would just result in devaluing both gold and US$ instead of just US$. It might be plausible if the government were to change their current spending policy, but honestly, how likely is that?"

Uh, the point of going with the gold standard is that it would force a change to the current spending policy. When your currency has to be backed up by a tangible asset, you can't rack up shitpiles of debt, then just print more money to pay it off / inflate it away.

That said, I'm not for going back to the gold standard. I'm just for fiscal responsibility.

4/12/2010 1:51:10 PM

going to the gold standard would be the death of our nation. wtf people.... economics much?!?

4/12/2010 2:06:25 PM

^^^It's not that. People can disagree with me on principle, I just don't think that's what you're doing. You rarely attack the ideas or arguments, you aim for people (Ron Paul, the libertarian movement in general). If it's true that we're all crackpots, it would be better to demonstrate why we're crackpots, rather than ask that we all take your word for it. Also, Austrian economics isn't really "the philosophies of Austrian aristocrats." People of many nationalities have contributed to the Austrian school as it exists today.

Axioms, as you're talking about them, stem from the acknowledgment that people have desires and goals, and consciously act in ways that will help them achieve those goals. Doesn't seem like most people would disagree with that. The problem is that classical and even neoclassical economists ignore that a lot of the time. Human behavior is something we only marginally understand. We, as humans, can't possibly understand all the dynamics at play within our societies, and that includes economics. Human behavior is too unpredictable. As such, we shouldn't treat economics as a formal science, just as we wouldn't treat sociology or political science like a formal science. There's a lot more to society than the numbers that can be compiled to describe it and the statistics that could be derived from those numbers.

Modern, mainstream economists don't like the axiom approach, but it's not because the approach lends itself to highly objectionable conclusions. It's because it's too limited, or not "powerful" enough. Austrian economics has become a heterodox school because it doesn't use econometrics, and people like to believe that they can pinpoint exactly how the economy will function in the future. It just doesn't work like that, though. Human desires are absurdly subjective, so prices must be dynamic. If prices are made static by the government, through price floors or price ceilings, there will certainly be distortions in the market. See the minimum wage, the Fed setting interest rates, etc.

^I'm not sure how we could go back to the gold standard at this point. The problem is that we came off the gold standard in the first place. Now there's the slow realization that our money is worth less and less every year. If the currency isn't backed by something, then the government will grow (whether it's the military, social programs, or whatever) at an alarming rate, which is what we're seeing now. There's no mechanism in place to impose fiscal discipline on the government.

[Edited on April 12, 2010 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2010 2:09:16 PM

coming off the gold standard was the best thing for our nation's economy!

it's like they say - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Same thing with gold standard.

4/12/2010 2:22:12 PM

4/13/2010 2:34:23 AM

Watched Romney on The Factor last night and was not at all impressed when he was asked about his Mass. Healthcare bill... O'Reilly had to ask him a few times if healthcare costs are lower... he tried to say that they were the highest in the nation before and they are the highest in the nation now... finally he admitted that the healthcare costs in Mass. have risen since he signed the bill.

This is a real downfall for Romney and if he doesn't admit that the plan was a failure, I don't know how the GOP can fully support him since defeating Obamacare is the primary objective for the Republican party right now....

4/13/2010 9:06:09 AM

Quote :

"This is a real downfall for Romney and if he doesn't admit that the plan was a failure,"

Exactly. If he stands a chance, he needs to do the opposite of what he is doing. He is trying to say his plan is SO much different than the presidents, but it really isnt. So you are just talking out of your ass when you attack O while pimping yourself for passing Masscare.

Instead he should say, look, I thought it sounded good we tried it, it didnt work. I was wrong, and the president is wrong. We need to try something else, not more of what doesnt work.

4/13/2010 10:57:03 AM

Quote :

"finally he admitted that the healthcare costs in Mass. have risen since he signed the bill"

That's disingenuous. Healthcare costs have risen everywhere else in the country at the same time, and more quickly in other places. Context, please, Mitt.

4/13/2010 11:01:59 AM

All of that said, we somehow, in all of the churning over healthcare, STILL managed to not really attack the monster in a constructive way. It's not an insurance problem--it's a cost problem first and foremost.

4/13/2010 12:11:27 PM

I can't figure out Romney's campaign strategists. You have a major issue that affects a very high percentage of people - the economy. You have a candidate that has a great history of turning around debts and fixing economic crisis - Mitt Romney. Why will they not drive on that issue and instead they insist on peter-pattering around with all these other things. From what I've seen beginning with last election I would equate Romney's campaign team to Tiger Woods' PR people.

4/13/2010 3:30:30 PM

I've heard some rumblings about General Petraeus.

Obviously if he's interested, he has to keep quiet right now, as he's still an active General (CENTCOM commander)

4/13/2010 9:49:30 PM

But how would he look standing beside Commander-in-Chief Palin?

4/14/2010 12:53:28 AM

Career military = government bureaucrat. If we need someone to fight someone, sure. If we need to run a government? Hell no. Career military might as well be as wasteful and incompetent as any other government bureaucrat.

4/14/2010 1:13:47 AM

Right, because it's the BUREAUCRATS that are wasting all the money.

4/14/2010 5:36:37 AM

^ Actually they do


I do though agree with Duke's OP. I have no problem voting for a fiscally responsible GOP. This is as long as he is not also tied to the christian-right moonbat crazy agenda or is not a puppet politician for big business and a few wealthy power brokers.

Either way i would not hesitate to vote Obama again over McPalin, if she ran in 2012.

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 8:55 AM. Reason : a]

4/14/2010 8:54:46 AM

Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

Quote :

"Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. "

Quote :

"But Republican voters also have decidedly mixed feelings about Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the party establishment. Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president. Paul, an anti-big government libertarian who engenders unusually strong feelings among his supporters, was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But he continues to have a solid following, especially in the growing Tea Party movement. Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters now consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, an eight-point increase from a month ago. Another 10% say they are not a part of the movement but have close friends or family members who are. "

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41

The strategy up to this point, from both parties, has been to ignore the Ron Paul movement or write it off as a bunch of fringe crackpots. I don't think that's going to work for too much longer.

The real struggle will be within the Republican party. Many in the GOP want to keep the status quo. That won't work. The pro-war, anti-liberty portion of the party needs to go. Why should Republicans not be for non-interventionism? Republicans used to stand for minding our own business. Why should we not support civil liberties? The Democrats get to say they're for civil liberties, despite the fact that they never do anything about it, only because mainstream GOP is so blatantly anti-civil liberties. The GOP should stand for fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and restoring the constitutional republic.

4/14/2010 3:20:44 PM

Quote :

"Career military = government bureaucrat."

I disagree. Esp commanders/higher ups

I would actually prefer a military mind over a career politician, bc they are able to look at the data, form a plan, and take action. They tend to be more principled. We have a long history of our presidents having military exp.

Just my opinion.

4/14/2010 4:02:03 PM

Ron Paul is no good for a ticket. He'd look too short next to President Palin. Also he's a little insane. You guys got any other solid limited-government candidates that aren't?

4/14/2010 4:07:13 PM

[Edited on April 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM. Reason : Wrong Thread...]

4/15/2010 9:06:04 AM